WHY CATHOLIC TEACHING SHOWS US THAT MARY IS TO BE CONSIDERED CO-REDEMPTRIX OR CO-REDEEMER

People who are against the title Co-Redemptrix (such as the
Dimonds) will admit that the actual meaning of it is not heretical,
it’s the title of Co-Redemptrix that they believe is heretical
even if the meaning of it is orthodox. Their position is that
it’s heretical to believe she also redeemed mankind like how
Christ did (and we agree that this is heretical). But their position
is also that it’s heretical to even give Mary the title of
Co-Redemptrix even if the meaning is orthodox (they believe it
can only be interpreted the heretical way), they have acknowledged
this in the debate video on this issue and in their articles, as we
will see. Peter Dimond said:

“The position of Co-Redemptrix is not that Mary
is in a category with the saints under the one Redeemer, and can
be called co-redeemer in a sense just like St. Paul is said
to help fill up the work of Redemption. No, the position of
Co-Redemptrix is that Mary is in a unique category with Jesus as the
Redeemer – a category which does not include St. Paul or any
other saint. Therefore, one cannot try to substantiate the
“Co-Redemptrix” position by appealing to how other saints
participate in the work of Redemption under the one Redeemer. That’s
illogical and fallacious.” (Mary is not the Co-Redeemer
(Co-Redemptrix); cf. Why Catholic teaching shows us that Mary is not
to be considered Co-Redemptrix or Co-Redeemer)

In the debate video, their opponent continually says that it
depends on how one defines Co-Redemptrix that determines whether it
is to be considered heretical or orthodox and he explains it several
times, but Peter continues to treat the title of Co-Redemptrix to
mean something that it does not mean, even after their opponent in
the video explained the true meaning, and Peter even acknowledged it
in the video but he still continued to treat the title Co-Redemptrix
to mean something that it does not mean even after it was explained
to him. Peter Dimond said:

“Mary was integral to the events that led up to the
redemption but Christ alone is the redeemer and he alone
redeemed the world, and therefore the title Co-Redemptrix, is a
false title. … there is no other reason to apply the
term Co-Redemptrix to her unless you are promoting the
idea that she played an integral role in the actual specific
formal act of redemption.”
(Mary is not the Co-Redeemer (video))

The correct meaning of the title Co-Redemptrix does not even mean
the way that he obstinately interprets it to mean, but he claims that
there is no reason to apply the term Co-Redemptrix to her unless
you’re promoting it the heretical way! This is dishonesty to
the max.

Peter Dimond, Is Our Lady the Co-Redeemer?: “These
facts considered, it is contrary to Catholic Teaching to say that
Mary is Co-Redemptrix. Certainly, it’s possible for people
to express themselves erroneously on this topic in good faith
before the specific dogmatic definitions above are presented to
them. But once they have seen these dogmatic definitions
[“Jesus Christ our Lord, who aloneis
our redeemer and Savior…” (Council of Trent, sess.
xxv)] they must reject this idea; it is, strictly speaking, a
heresy which contradicts the dogmatic teaching of Trent and
Florence.”

First, when Peter himself has admitted that there is an
orthodox and non-heretical view to the title of Co-Redemptrix or
Co-Redeemer, then it is obviously illogical of him to conclude
that it must be heretical to apply the non-heretical
and orthodox termof
Co-Redemptrix to Mary.

Second, Popes and Holy Scripture teaches infallibly that all men
have sinned without mentioning any exceptions. That did not mean
there were no exceptions, and it did not mean the popes believed
Christ and Mary had sinned, only they saw no need to mention the
exception in the infallible decree, because the exceptions were
already mentioned elsewhere. The Bible is the primary infallible
source of revelation and it teaches, “all men have sinned”
without mentioning the two exceptions of Jesus and Mary.

“Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and
by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, in whom
all have sinned.” (Rom. 5:12)

This must me taken in context. It is not meant to include Jesus
and Mary although it does not mention them as exceptions. Other
sources of revelation have to be looked at, either other places in
the Bible or the oral traditions of the original apostles. We see the
same thing in the Council of Trent.

Council of Trent, On Original Sin, sess. V: “2. If any
one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself
alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice,
received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and
not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of
disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body,
into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the
death of the soul; let him be anathema:--whereas he contradicts
the apostle who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and
by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all
have sinned. [Rom. 5:12]” (D. 789)

The exception was not mentioned at all in this paragraph. In a
different paragraph within the same decree later onthere is
mention that Mary is not included in this decree. But the
exception of Jesus Christ is not mentioned at all. This same above
decree is found word for word in the Council of Orange II, 529,
Original Sin, Grace, Predestination, and it never mentions any
exceptions.

Council of Orange, Canon 2 (A.D. 529): “If anyone
asserts that Adam’s sin affected him alone and not his
descendants also, or at least if he declares that it is only the
death of the body which is the punishment for sin, and not also
that sin, which is the death of the soul, passed through one man
to the whole human race, he does injustice to God and
contradicts the Apostle, who says, “Therefore as sin came
into the world through one man and death through sin, and so
death spread to all men because all men sinned” (Rom.
5:12).”

Pope Boniface II confirmed the Council of Orange. Footnote 1,
Denzinger 175: “Orange in Gaul. This Council approved by
Boniface II [See D. n. 200 a. f.] obtained such authority in the
Church that it is worthily held as an infallible rule.” (D.
175) As a side note this is a Regional Council that was made
infallible by a pope.

The Catholic Encyclopedia explains: “The acts of the
council, which were signed by the bishops, the pretorian prefect
Liberius and seven other distinguished laymen, were forwarded to
Rome and approved by Boniface II on 25 January, 531. They
consequently enjoy œcumenical [infallible] authority
and are printed in Denzinger’s "Enchiridion Symbolorum"
(10th ed., nos. 174-200).” (The Catholic Encyclopedia,
Vol. 11, "Councils of Orange", 1911)

Pope Clement VIII also taught that “all sinned”
without mentioning any exceptions.

Pope Clement XIII, A Quo Die, 1758: “8. …Let us
not think that our true, solid, and serious glory comes from the
lips of men. We have all sinned, and we all need the glory
of God.”

Did the infallible Council of Orange and Pope Clement mean that
Christ and Mary had sinned? And did the infallible Council of Trent
mean that Christ has sinned (or that Mary sinned until it made her an
exception three paragraphs later)? Of course not. It is understood
they did not mean to include them, because the exceptions were so
well taught elsewhere.

Peter Dimond, Is Our Lady the
Co-Redeemer?: “Those who have a problem with the fact
that we have said that Mary is not Co-Redemptrix or Co-Redeemer
don’t have a problem with us; they have a problem with
the dogmatic Council of Trent, the teaching of the Holy
Catholic Church, which erred according to themwhen it infallibly defined that Jesus aloneis our Redeemer. Further, look at the context of this
dogmatic definition of the Catholic Church. The context deals
with devotion to Our Lady and the Saints; and yet not only does
it not say that Our Lady is Co-Redemptrix, it specifically
contradicts the idea by infallibly declaring that Christ alone
is Our Redeemer.

Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent,
Sess. 25, On Invocation, Veneration and Relics of Saints, and on
Sacred Images, ex cathedra: “…the saints, who
reign with Christ, offer up their prayers to God for me; and that
it is good and useful to invoke them suppliantly and, in order to
obtain favors from God through His Son JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD,
WHO ALONE IS OUR REDEEMER and Savior….But
if anyone should teach or maintain anything contrary to these
decrees, let him be anathema.” (Denz. 984-987)

As we have seen already, the point is that just because a certain
infallible text does not mention an exception does not mean there is
not an exception. Other sources of revelation have to be
looked at, either other places in the Bible or the oral traditions of
the original apostles, or other infallible Councils and decrees. The
Holy Bible has many such examples. I relate this to the dogma
“Outside the Church there is no salvation,” because those
who deny the dogma say that there are exceptions to the words of
Popes Innocent III in the Fourth Lateran Council, Boniface
VIII in the Bull Unam Sanctum, and Pope Eugene IV in the
Council of Florence. But search as they may they will find no
exceptions mentioned elsewhere, not in the same decrees or any other
decrees by these popes or their predecessors.

Peter then said: “there is no other reason to apply the term
Co-Redemptrix to her unless you are promoting the idea that she
played an integral role in the actual specific formal act of
redemption.” The Blessed Virgin obviously was a partner in
the redemption—not an equal partner but a lesser partner. That
is why she is called the Co-Redeemer and Jesus is called the
Redeemer. Christ redeemed men from their sins but not without a
partner from which He could take on human flesh. This partner, Mary,
is correctly titled the Co-Redeemer because she played a vital role
in the remission of men’s sins, while Jesus is the
sole Redeemer whose death remitted men’s sins. Just because
Mary’s title has the word “redeemer” in it does not
mean she usurps Jesus’ title as the sole redeemer whose death
remitted men’s sins.

Just as the Blessed Virgin Mary is the Mediatrix, she also is the
Co-Redemptrix or Co-Redeemer. The principle is the same. Just as
Mary’s title of Mediatrix does not deny Jesus Christ’s
title as sole mediator before men and God the Father, Mary’s
title of Co-Redeemer does not deny Jesus Christ’s title as the
sole redeemer whose sacrifice remits sins and thus redeems men:
“In whom we have redemption through his [Jesus’] blood,
the remission of sins.” (Eph. 1:7)

How the Council of Trent is to be understood

The Council of Trent: “Jesus
Christ our Lord, who alone is our redeemer and Savior…”
(sess. xxv)

The Council of Trent uses the word “redeemer” to mean
the one who redeems men from their sins and thus reunites them to God
and offers them eternal life. However, the Bible also refers to other
redeemers; but these redeemers did not effect the remission of sins.
For instance, Moses was also called a redeemer: “This
Moses… God sent to be prince and redeemer, by the hand of the
angel who appeared to him in the burning bush.” (Acts 7:35)

Rheims New Testament, 1582,
annotation on Acts 7: 35: “Christ is our Redeemer, and yet
Moses is here called redeemer. So Christ is our
Mediator and Advocate, and yet we may have Saints as our inferior
mediators and advocates. (See Annot. 1 John 2:1)”

Further, in the continuation of Council of Trent, Session 25 (that
Peter quotes to deny Mary as Co-Redeemer), it says concerning “the
one mediator of God and men, Jesus Christ” that:

“Jesus Christ our Lord, who
alone is our redeemer and Savior; and that they think
impiously who deny that the saints who enjoy eternal happiness in
heaven are to be invoked, or who assert that they do not pray for
men, or that our invocation of them to pray for each of us
individually is idolatry, or that it is opposed to the word of God
and inconsistent with the honor of the ONE MEDIATOR OF GOD
AND MEN, JESUS CHRIST…” (Council of Trent,
Session 25)

So the Council of Trent just said infallibly that it’s not
opposed to the word of Godto invoke the saints in heaven
and that this is not “inconsistentwith the honor of the ONE MEDIATOROF GOD AND MEN, JESUS CHRIST…”

Hence Moses’ title as redeemer does not deny
Christ’s title as the sole redeemeras referred to
in the Council of Trent because Trent’s use of the word
“redeemer” is in reference to the ultimate redemption,
the salvation of souls. The same applies to
Christ’s title as sole mediator before God. This title does
not mean there cannot be other mediators, such as the Blessed Virgin
Mary and the good angels and the saints, all who are mediators
between men and Christ, as we have just seen. So, indeed, Moses
was truly a redeemer, but an inferior redeemer to Christ. Moses’
title as redeemer was in reference to the temporary salvation of
God’s chosen people from slavery and other hardships imposed on
them by the Egyptians. Moses’ redemption also prepared God’s
chosen people for the ultimate redemption when Christ died on the
cross:

Catholic commentary on Acts 7: “Ver.
35. … Redeemer. In the Greek Lutroten; Protestant
version, Deliverer; though the learned Polus, in his Synopsis
Criticorum, on this place, says, ‘that no greater injury is
done to God, by calling Moses a Redeemer, in this place, than
by calling him a Mediator, in Galatians iii. 19. He is called
a Redeemer…in as much as he led forth, and preserved the
people of God safe by the blood of a lamb, and this exhibited a
figure of the true redemption, through the blood of Christ.’”

The Council of Florence taught the same. It declared that Jesus
Christ alone by His death redeemed the human race and “opened
the entrance to the kingdom of heaven.” Thus, when the
Councils use the word “redeemer”, it is in reference to
the ultimate redemption, the salvation of souls and the opening of
the kingdom of heaven.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of
Florence, “Cantate Domino” 1441, ex cathedra: “The
Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and teaches that no one
conceived of man and woman was ever freed of the domination of the
Devil, except through the merit of the mediator between God and men,
our Lord Jesus Christ; He who was conceived without sin, was born
and died, through His death alonelaid low the
enemy of the human race by destroying our sins, and opened
the entrance to the kingdom of heaven, which the first man by his own
sin had lost…” (Denz. 711)

It’s interesting that the Catechism of the Council of
Trent also teaches that Christ alone redeemed us and “reconciled
us to the heavenly Father through His blood.” While the
catechism is not infallible, it reiterates the truth that was
solemnly defined in the aforementioned councils.

Catechism of the Council of Trent,
Part III: The Decalogue – First Commandment – Thou Shalt
not Have Strange Gods, etc. – Objections Answered: “True,
there is but one Mediator, Christ the Lord, who alone has
reconciled us to the heavenly Father through His blood, and
who, having obtained eternal redemption, and having
entered once into the holies, ceases not to intercede for us.”

All of the above quotes that we have looked at, the Dimonds use
to “prove” that “Christ “alone”
redeemed us and that Christ “alone” is the Redeemer”,
which no one is denying, and they focus solely on the “alone”
part completely ignoring what the quotes and councils means with
their statements.

Peter Dimond: “The bottom-line
is that there is no way of getting around the dogmatic definitions
which declare that Jesus Christ alone is the Redeemer.”
(Mary is not the Co-Redeemer (Co-Redemptrix))

Let’s see Council of Trent’s own answer to Peters
protestant objection of Christ “alone” this, or Christ
“alone” that when this exact same term is applied to the
“ONE MEDIATOR OF GOD AND MEN, JESUS
CHRIST”:

The Council of Trent: “Jesus
Christ our Lord, who alone is our redeemer and Savior; and
that they think impiously who deny that the saints who enjoy
eternal happiness in heaven are to be invoked, or who assert that
they do not pray for men, or that our invocation of them to pray for
each of us individually is idolatry, or that it is opposed to the
word of God and inconsistent with the honor of the ONE
MEDIATOR OF GOD AND MEN, JESUS CHRIST…” (sess.
xxv)

All who read this text should know that Mary is the “Mediatrix
of all Graces” according to Catholic teaching, which means that
She is a Mediator in the work of salvation of man. But according to
the false logic of the teaching of MHFM, this would deny Trent.

Therefore the Council of Trent’s reference to Jesus as the
only redeemer must be taken in correct context or one might deny the
Bible verse that says Moses is also a redeemer, or deny that Mary can
be Co-Mediator. Hence the Bible, councils and popes never meant to
teach that there cannot be other types of redeemers or mediators,
such as Moses, or that there cannot be a co-redeemer or co-mediator,
such as the Blessed Virgin Mary.

As the First Vatican Council declared on January 6, 1870
concerning understanding the dogmas as the Church has understood and
understands:

“If
anyone says that it is possible that
at some time given the advancement of knowledge, a
sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is
different FROM THAT WHICH THE CHURCH HAS UNDERSTOOD AND UNDERSTANDS:
let him be anathema.” (Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council
I, Session 3, On Faith and
Reason, 4:3)

Jesus is the sole redeemer who redeemed men from their sins.
However, the redemption did not happen without a woman who was worthy
enough to conceive God in her womb so that the redemption could take
place. This woman is the Immaculate Virgin Mary! Christ died for our
sins, but without Mary there is no Christ to die for our sins.
Christ’s death redeems men, but without Mary there is no Christ
to redeem men. Therefore without Mary, there is no redemption. Hence
Mary is truly and properly the Co-Redeemer! Christ redeemed men, but
He would not redeem men without the help of Mary whose flesh He took
and who offered her Son to God as Abraham offered Isaac. It is in
this sense that Mary is truly the Co-Redeemer, which does not
conflict with the Bible or infallible papal decrees or councils when
taken in correct context and understood as the Church understands it.
Indeed, popes, saints and other Catholic writers have taught that
Mary is Co-Redeemer:

Life of St. Anthony of Padua
(1195-1231): “The first word [St. Anthony] uttered was the holy
name of Mary… His most powerful and moving sermons were
preached in her honor. In his writings are to be found the doctrines
of her Immaculate Conception and glorious Assumption; and he never
tired of speaking of her as the Mediatrix of All Graces, nor of
dwelling upon her part in the redemption.” (Saints to
Know and Love, by The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, St.
Anthony of Padua)

St. Alphonsus
Liguori, The Glories of Mary, Chapter IV, Section II —
Mary, our Mediatress — The Necessity of the Intercession of
Mary for our Salvation: “Saint Bernard says, ‘that as a
man and a woman cooperated in our ruin, so it was proper that
another man and another woman should cooperate in our redemption; and
these two were Jesus and his Mother Mary.’ ‘There is
no doubt,’ says the Saint, ‘that Jesus Christ alone was
more than sufficient to redeem us; but it was more becoming that both
sexes should cooperate in the reparation of an evil in causing which
both had shared.’ Hence blessed Albert the Great calls Mary
‘the helper of redemption:’ and this Blessed Virgin
herself revealed to Saint Bridget, that ‘as Adam and Eve sold
the world for an apple, so did she with her Son redeem it as it were
with one heart.’ This is confirmed by Saint Anselm, who says,
‘that although God could create the world out of nothing, yet,
when it was lost by sin, He would not repair the evil without the
cooperation of Mary.’

“Suarez says, ‘that Mary
cooperated in our salvation in three ways; first, by having merited
by a merit of congruity the Incarnation of the Word; secondly, by
having continually prayed for us whilst she was living in this world;
thirdly, by having willingly sacrificed the life of her Son to God.’
For this reason our Lord has justly decreed, that as Mary cooperated
in the salvation of man with so much love, and at the same time gave
such glory to God, so all men through her intercession are to obtain
their salvation.

“Mary
is called ‘the cooperator in our justification; for to her God
has intrusted all graces intended for us;’ and therefore Saint
Bernard affirms, ‘that all men, past, present, and to come,
should look upon Mary as the means and negotiator of the salvation of
all ages.’ … And shall we scruple to ask her to save us,
when ‘the way of salvation is open to none otherwise than
through Mary?’ as a certain author remarks. And before him
Saint Germanus had said the same thing, speaking of Mary: ‘No
one is saved but through thee.’ … And as we have access
to the Eternal Father, says Saint Bernard, only through Jesus Christ,
so have we access to Jesus Christ only through Mary: ‘By thee
we have access to the Son, O blessed finder of grace, bearer of life,
and mother of salvation, that we may receive Him by thee, Who through
thee was given to us.’”

Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus,
1854: “All our hope do we repose in the most Blessed Virgin—in
the all fair and immaculate one who has crushed the poisonous head of
the most cruel serpent and brought salvation to the world: in
her who is the glory of the prophets and apostles, the honor of the
martyrs, the crown and joy of all the saints; in her who is the
safest refuge and the most trustworthy helper of all who are in
danger; in her who, with her only-begotten Son, is the most powerful
Mediatrix and Conciliatrix in the whole world; in her who is the most
excellent glory, ornament, and impregnable stronghold of the holy
Church.”

Pope Pius X, Ad
Diem Illum Laetissimum, 1904: “6. Could not God have given
us, in another way than through the Virgin, the Redeemer of the human
race and the Founder of the Faith? Hence whenever the Scriptures
speak prophetically of the grace which was to appear among us, the
Redeemer of mankind is almost invariably presented to us as united
with His mother. …Now the Blessed Virgin did not conceive
the Eternal Son of God merely in order that He might be made man
taking His human nature from her, but also in order that by means
of the nature assumed from her He might be the Redeemer of men. …

“12. Moreover it was not only the prerogative of the Most Holy
Mother to have furnished the material of His flesh to the Only Son of
God, Who was to be born with human members, of which material should
be prepared the Victim for the salvation of men; but hers was also
the office of tending and nourishing that Victim, and at the
appointed time presenting Him for the sacrifice. …When the
supreme hour of the Son came, beside the Cross of Jesus there stood
Mary His Mother, not merely occupied in contemplating the cruel
spectacle, but rejoicing that her Only Son was offered for the
salvation of mankind, and so entirely participating in His Passion,
that if it had been possible she would have gladly borne all the
torments that her Son bore. And from this community of will and
suffering between Christ and Mary she merited to become most
worthily the Reparatrix[1] [Co-Redeemer] of
the lost world and Dispensatrix of all the gifts that Our Savior
purchased for us by Death and by His Blood…

“14.
We are…very far from attributing to the Mother of God a
productive power of grace—a power which belongs to God alone.
Yet, since Mary carries it over all in holiness and union with Jesus
Christ, and has been associated by Jesus Christ in the work of
redemption, she merits for us ‘de congruo,’ in the
language of theologians, what Jesus Christ merits for us ‘de
condigno,’ and she is the supreme Minister of the distribution
of graces.”

[1] The Latin word “reparo” means to
restore, renew, or purchase. Hence the pope refers to Mary as a
partner with Jesus in renewing men to eternal life and restoring a
fallen world by purchasing or redeeming men’s sin debt, which
means Jesus is Redeemer and Mary is Co-Redeemer.

The Sources of Catholic Dogma,
Denzinger: “In the decree of the Sacred Congregation of the
Holy Office (section on indulgences), Sunt quos amor, June 26,
1913 (AAS 5 (1913) 363), he [Pope Benedict XV] praises the custom of
adding to the name of Jesus the name of ‘His Mother, our
coredemptor, the blessed Mary’; cf. also the prayer enriched by
the Holy Office with an indulgence, in which the Blessed Virgin Mary
is called ‘coredemptress of the human race.’ (Jan. 22,
1914; AAS 6 [1914] 108).”

Pope Benedict XV, Inter solalicia,
1918: “The Blessed Virgin suffered with her suffering Son and
nearly died with Him when He died; she abdicated her maternal rights
over her Son for the salvation of men, and so far as it appertained
to her she immolated her Son to placate the divine justice; so that
she may rightly be said to have redeemed the human race with
Christ.”

Pope Pius XI, Miserentissimus
Redemptor, 1928: “And now lastly may the most benign Virgin
Mother of God smile on this purpose and on these desires of ours; for
since she brought forth for us Jesus our Redeemer, and nourished Him,
and offered Him as a victim by the Cross, by her mystic union with
Christ and His very special grace she likewise became and is piously
called a reparatress [Co-Redemptrix].”

Pope Pius XI, Auspicatus profecto,
1933: “[Mary became the Mother of Jesus] in order that she
might become a partner in the redemption of the human race.”

Pope Pius XI, Explorata res,
1923: “The Virgin participated with Jesus Christ in the very
painful act of the redemption.”

In a book series on the Catholic faith called “The Library
Of Catholic Knowledge”, in the book about the Blessed Virgin
Mary, it explains Co-Redemptrix, and it goes onto say: “It
belongs to the Church to fix the language of her theology, and to
judge whether or not any confusion is likely to occur in certain
cases; and in authorized documents the magisterium of the Church
tends increasingly to favour the expression Co-redemptrix to express
this doctrine. It has now received “the freedom of the city”
so to speak, and it remains for us to explain what it involves.”

The book then goes onto explain in detail Co-Redemptrix. So when
it comes down to it, the Church has most certainly allowed the idea
and it has been around for hundreds and hundreds of years, and, as we
have seen, at least 3 Popes have taught it, and the medieval
Franciscans support it too and so did Saints, and the main thing
is that the term is not heretical because what it MEANS is not
heretical! The Dimonds in their pride (yet again) have lied and
have given themselves far too much confidence on this. For them to
condemn anyone who holds it (the correct meaning), is absolutely
absurd.

In Reparation for Insults Offered to the Blessed Virgin
Mary (Taken from the Raccolta)

O blessed Virgin, Mother of God, look
down in mercy from Heaven, where thou art enthroned as Queen, upon
me, a miserable sinner, thine unworthy servant. Although I know full
well my own unworthiness, yet in order to atone for the offenses that
are done to thee by impious and blasphemous tongues, from the depths
of my heart I praise and extol thee as the purest, the fairest, the
holiest creature of all God’s handiwork. I bless thy holy Name,
I praise thine exalted privilege of being truly Mother of God, ever
Virgin, conceived without stain of sin, Co-Redemptrix of the human
race. I bless the Eternal Father who chose thee in an especial
way for His daughter; I bless the Word Incarnate who took upon Him
our nature in thy bosom and so made thee His Mother; I bless the Holy
Spirit who took thee as His bride. All honor, praise and thanksgiving
to the ever-blessed Trinity who predestined thee and loved thee so
exceedingly from all eternity as to exalt thee above all creatures to
the most sublime heights. O Virgin, holy and merciful, obtain for all
who offend thee the grace of repentance, and graciously accept this
poor act of homage from me thy servant, obtaining likewise for me
from thy divine Son the pardon and remission of all my sins. Amen.

An indulgence of 500 days (Holy
Office, Jan. 22, 1914; S. P. Ap., Dec. 4, 1934). The Raccolta,
translated into English from the 1938 edition by The Rev. Joseph P.
Christopher, Ph.D., and The Very Rev. Charles E. Spence, M.A. (Oxon.)
By authorization of the Holy See.

Copyright information: All videos and articles on our site are free to copy and share for free. Please remember to also include live links to the source of the information.
We are looking for translators who have the skill to make a good translation of important articles for the salvation of souls. We are also in need of translators who can translate Saint Bridget's Revelations into different languages. If you can help us on this important work, please contact us here.
We need your help! We are spending all the time our expenses among things like websites, webhotels, and giving away free material, dvds and books in order to warn people and tell them the truth. So if you like the material and want to help us—and be yourself a sharer—in saving souls, then please make a donation, pray for us and help us spread it in order to help our beloved brothers and sisters who have not found this information yet. If you have been graced by God with the means to do so, please support our work. Any donation that you can give is highly appreciated and much needed! Help us help our beloved brothers' and sisters' souls. Your Support Counts! All for the Glory of God and the salvation of souls! Please click here!
"And whosoever shall give to drink to one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, amen I say to you, he shall not lose his reward." Matthew 10:42